That old non-compete clause trick I tried in 2019

Back in 2019, I was stuck with a non-compete that kept me from working in my field for 2 years. My lawyer buddy told me to check if there was a geographic limit, and sure enough, the contract said "within 50 miles" but didn't list my actual town name. I challenged it and got it thrown out in court in Cleveland. Anyone else ever successfully fought a non-compete by finding a technicality like that?

3 comments

3 Comments

logan_ellis2d ago

But doesn't a contract's validity actually come down to whether it was reasonable in scope, not just a missing town name? You just got lucky because your judge agreed the 50 mile limit was too vague without a specific location attached. Most courts will still enforce a non-compete if it's fairly limited in time and geography, so that loophole isn't something you can count on working again.

robert_bell1d ago

Oh man, I gotta push back a little on that @logan_ellis. I mean, yeah, courts do look at reasonableness overall, but missing a town name on a 50 mile radius is actually a pretty big deal in a lot of states. I've seen cases where judges flat out refuse to enforce anything if the geography is too vague, because how do you even measure 50 miles from nowhere? It's not just about getting lucky, it's about basic contract clarity. Maybe it's just me, but if you can't even specify the starting point, that feels like the whole thing falls apart before you even get to arguing about time or scope.

reesel501d ago

Nah, I gotta disagree with you on that one. A missing anchor point for the radius is a legit flaw, not just a lucky break. How can anyone know if they're violating it if the starting point isn't even clear? That's a basic contract thing, not some niche loophole. I've seen people get out of way worse terms just because the language was too fuzzy, so I'd say it's more common than you think.